Claimant v Mr D Coackley (one of HM Inspectors of Health and Safety) — 2021

Mr Adrian Allan Wilson appealed prohibition notice P/22/06/2020/DAC/01 issued by HM Inspector of Health and Safety Mr David Coackley on 22 June 2020. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Wilson, Mr Coackley and Mr Craig Watkins, and considered photographs, video footage and the UKLPG Code of Practice 12:2005. The appeal raised two main points: that the notice had been unreasonably issued and that the circumstances of its issue amounted to an abuse of process, including a challenge to the inspector’s entry onto the property.

The tribunal rejected the submission that s.20 of the 1974 Act did not permit entry to domestic premises. It held that the definition of “premises” in s.53 was broad and included Mr Wilson’s house. It also found that the inspection on 22 June 2020 was consensual in any event, and that Sgt Hunter’s mistaken reference to a “warrant” did not affect the lawfulness of the respondent’s entry.

On the application of the Act, the tribunal found that Mr Wilson was carrying out self-employed activities by refilling and selling Campingaz cylinders and then using the proceeds to fund Friends of Sherwood Forest. It rejected the argument that the charitable purpose meant the statutory provisions did not apply, and held that the relevant duty was s.3(2), not s.2(1), because Mr Wilson was not acting as an employer.

On risk, the tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr Coackley and Mr Watkins, together with the photographs and videos, that the refilling process involved an upturned 15kg Calor Gas cylinder, a hose, a small workbench, uncalibrated weighing equipment, spray-painting of cylinders and a confined domestic yard close to a house and drains. It found that these methods created a risk of serious personal injury within s.22(2), including the possibility of leak, ignition and explosion, and rejected the submission that the respondent’s assessment of risk was irrational. The tribunal therefore affirmed the prohibition notice, but modified it to omit reference to s.2(1) because the notice should have been based on s.3(2) alone.